Earlier this year, the European Commission imposed a massive fine upon Intel for its anti-competitive practices in the OEM space. Intel has been given the opportunity to respond, as is usual in cases like this, and the chip maker is claiming that the fine should be thrown out, because the EC did not prove that Intel's practices hurt the competition.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-19
I disagree at least partly.
AMD always offered competitive performance for the money you had to pay.
In the lower price / lower performance area AMD always was better than Intel, even when the C2D arrived. Before C2D, AMD was competitive performance wise, and only marginally cheaper.
I bought a 45W peak Athlon x86-64 2.2 GHz single core CPU this January, and it costed EUR 36,-. At that point in time the least power-hungry Intel CPU of similar performance that was available in stores costed approximately twice as much and consumed 65W TDP (not peak!!!). It was a dual-core CPU, that is the reason why it was more expensive and consumed more power. But all I wanted was cheap and low-power.
Dual-core does not increase the performance of a typical Desktop-computer. I have one Intel quad-core 2.8 GHz, 16 GB RAM machine for FE-calculations, and that machine is not really much faster than the 2.2 GHz Athlon 4 GB RAM single core machine. At least not by a factor of 5 (the Factor must be somewhere near 1.1).
Member since:
2006-10-28
"Isn't AMD a European Own Company? I remember 5-6 years ago AMD was actually beating Intel in PC Sales."
No, AMD is American. It wasn't beating Intel either. Intel had much more sales. However, it posed a tough threat to Intel between 2003-2006.
"A lot of PC's proudly had AMD stickers on them, and they were doing quite well until the Intel Core Dues came out."
True. AMD was fairly popular between 2003-2006, and many bragged about having AMD CPUs in their computers. Before the Core 2 blew them out of the water, they were the better value, offer superior performance at a lower price. Also, Intel's rather abusive monopoly power was slipping at the time.
"And they performed better and cheaper then what AMD had to offer."
Yes, the Core 2 really outclassed AMD, and they couldn't keep up with intel on the high end performance wise. Thus, they had to lower their prices greatly to remain competitive. However, it didn't work that well. Their share slipped and Inetl beat them fair and square with the C2D.